Can anyone here in all honesty say they would feel no anger towards an unvaccinated nurse/doctor that spread measles to their NICU preemie infant who then ended up getting encephalitis from it? Because that nurse had never received the vaccine and didn't feel like getting it? Somehow I seriously doubt it.

I don't think I would be angry at the nurse for not vaccinating. I don't expect people to vaccinate - nurses included.

I do expect people and particulalry nurses/doctors to not go to work sick.

If she knowingly went to work sick, I would be mad. I would be mad at her for going to work sick as the responsibility for staying home when sick is ultimately hers and I would be mad at the hospital if they had prohibitive sick leave policies.

PS: I suspect very few people who avoid vaccines avoid them because they "do not feel like getting one." Nurses, who face a lot of pressure to vaccinate, in particular.

I don't think I would be angry at the nurse for not vaccinating. I don't expect people to vaccinate - nurses included.

I do expect people and particulalry nurses/doctors to not go to work sick.

If she knowingly went to work sick, I would be mad. I would be mad at her for going to work sick as the responsibility for staying home when sick is ultimately hers and I would be mad at the hospital if they had prohibitive sick leave policies.

PS: I suspect very few people who avoid vaccines avoid them because they "do not feel like getting one." Nurses, who face a lot of pressure to vaccinate, in particular.

Its not that simple, diseases don't work on an on/off switch. You can spread diseases before symptoms show up at all.

Why would you not be angry at a nurse that caused a preventable death?

My understanding is that the issue is not about making public something someone posted on the internet. It's about posting someone ELSE'S personal health information on the internet without their permission.

Really, children who are not "up-to-date" on the mandated vaccines are treated pretty much the way people who were HIV-positive, decades ago. And when you think about it, when was the last time parents of an infant required everyone who came near that infant to be tested for AIDS?

And before it was AIDS, people in the US were afraid of people of different races and religions.

Seems like there is always an excuse for attempting to institute a caste system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle

Agreed.

No, not agreed. Not vaccinating is a deliberate decision made by a person. Comparing that to HIV status or race is simply not an apt comparison. You can't decide not to have HIV anymore or be considered a different race because it would be easier. You can decide to get vaccinated after not being vaccinated for any length of time.

Its not that simple, diseases don't work on an on/off switch. You can spread diseases before symptoms show up at all.

I looked up the flu. It turns out you are contagious with the flu for 1 day before symptoms show up.

I am well aware people can be contagious before symptoms show up. How contagious and for how long is another issue and disease specific.

That people can get diseases and spread them before symptoms show up is not enough to insist everyone vaccinate. I don't tell people what to do with their own bodies and I acknowledge actions have risks and benefits and everyone ( or their parents) can decide for themselves.

No, not agreed. Not vaccinating is a deliberate decision made by a person. Comparing that to HIV status or race is simply not an apt comparison. You can't decide not to have HIV anymore or be considered a different race because it would be easier. You can decide to get vaccinated after not being vaccinated for any length of time.

You can reduce the risk you get HIV though. At least some cases of HIV could have been prevented if people took certain precautions, but they didn't.

In any event, the point is somewhat moot - discrimination is not based on whether or not ones inclusion in a group is voluntary. Religion is a good example of a voluntary group you should not be discriminated against because you are part of one.

No, not agreed. Not vaccinating is a deliberate decision made by a person. Comparing that to HIV status or race is simply not an apt comparison. You can't decide not to have HIV anymore or be considered a different race because it would be easier. You can decide to get vaccinated after not being vaccinated for any length of time.

You do understand preventable in regards to vaccine is a misnomer?

Vaccines are not 100% and we are now learning more about being an asymptomatic carrier. Science once thought antibiotics were the cure all, they were handed out like candy, we know now differently. Super Bugs! What if it turns out that asymptomatic carriers are the ones causing most of the outbreaks? Evidence is certainly pointing in that direction. Over vaccination like we found with over use/abuse of antibiotics may be what we find down the road.

IMO- Just because you can currently (in some cases) can ask about vaccine status, but not the disease status, of some heath/medical personal does not mean your risk(s) out side of the medical community is not where the greater thread lies. Some seem to feel that they have some sort of "control" if they know the vaccine status and place so much on that, when reality the threats we face are in what we can not know - false security wrapped up in the misguide believe you can control others (impose mandates, etc) for your desired outcome. Lost in the world of preventable meaning absolute to the disregard of all factors.

What about all those who can not vaccinate for medical reasons, they to are doing so deliberately? Immune compromised individuals are mostly unvaccinated themselves.

This idea that only those who choose not to vaccinate for non-medical reasons are the only ones that can spread certain diseases and that those who can not vaccinate for medical reasons can not be spreaders appears to be the understanding of some. The assumption that unvaccinated children or adults are just walking bio labs ready to spew at any moment.

Kathy really said it best - Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle

In any event, the point is somewhat moot - discrimination is not based on whether or not ones inclusion in a group is voluntary. Religion is a good example of a voluntary group you should not be discriminated against because you are part of one.

you can be really stupid and cause an accident that is totally your fault and become paralyzed, you become disabled, you can not be discriminated against by law - your actions were what caused you to be disabled-voluntary

But it concludes by talking about balancing the hospital's interest in protecting patients from flu exposure; the Cochrane Review has concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers actually protects patients from influenza or resulting complications from influenza.

But it concludes by talking about balancing the hospital's interest in protecting patients from flu exposure; the Cochrane Review has concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers actually protects patients from influenza or resulting complications from influenza.

But it concludes by talking about balancing the hospital's interest in protecting patients from flu exposure; the Cochrane Review has concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers actually protects patients from influenza or resulting complications from influenza.

What kind of balance is that??

The Cochrane review you're referring to is very specifically on the effect of vaccinating HCWs working in long term care facilities with residents >/= 65 yrs old. It makes no sense to extrapolate that to HCWs working in settings like NICUs, peds units, maternity units, emergency rooms.

At home amongst the redwoods To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11, and #2 due in October 2015 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Instant CNM, just add To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !

The Cochrane review you're referring to is very specifically on the effect of vaccinating HCWs working in long term care facilities with residents >/= 65 yrs old. It makes no sense to extrapolate that to HCWs working in settings like NICUs, peds units, maternity units, emergency rooms.

I disagree.

You get the flu by inhaling droplet of moisture from someone who has the flu.

If the healthcare workers do not have the flu, they cannot spread the flu…and yet vaccination does not seem to be decreasing the rate at which those in long term care facilies get the flu.

It is not as if the method of transmission changes from demographic to demographic.

"Union and non-union hospitals should consider the potential for discrimination claims based on a flu vaccination policy that requires any group of employees to get a flu shot or face adverse consequences (such as discharge) if they fail to do so for any reason. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would likely find such a policy to be unlawful. The EEOC has taken the position in its “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” guidance that

“[a]n employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).”

I think as with other social issues it takes one state to step up and this really is a much larger issue, not simply vaccines (it is a start) but this gets to the heart of civil liberties and health care choices and many see this as a small step in a much MUCH larger tipping point. Many that DO support vaccines no not support the mandated part and that is why I do have hope for it passing.

The Cochrane review you're referring to is very specifically on the effect of vaccinating HCWs working in long term care facilities with residents >/= 65 yrs old. It makes no sense to extrapolate that to HCWs working in settings like NICUs, peds units, maternity units, emergency rooms.

I disagree as well. Same as what Kathy said, It is not as if the method of transmission changes from demographic to demographic.

It's the same disease too.

Do you have anything to back up your claims? A study done in the areas you stated that show the opposite is true?

We are constantly being told the demography with the 65+ are at the same risk as those in the under 5 crowd and HCW are HCW in both types of medical facilities.

ETA- with the Cochrane Review there was ability to view this is a longer setting with those patients and gather more data vs short term visits in the setting you mentioned

Neonates, for instance, can't get vaccinated against flu while people over 65 are in a demographic very likely to get the vaccine annually, as well as the pneumonia vaccine, especially in a long term care facility. You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?

At home amongst the redwoods To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11, and #2 due in October 2015 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Instant CNM, just add To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !

Neonates, for instance, can't get vaccinated against flu while people over 65 are in a demographic very likely to get the vaccine annually, as well as the pneumonia vaccine, especially in a long term care facility. You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?

But the Cochrane Review has also concluded that flu shots are ineffective on people over 65! So it doesn't matter if they get the flu shot annually, if it doesn't work, anyway.

Neonates can't get vaccinated for the flu--but infants and toddlers under the age of 2 can't be given FluMist (which is actually somewhat effective), and the flu SHOT is (again, according to the Cochrane Review) ineffective for infants and toddlers.

The Cochrane Review is VERY CLEAR that flu shots have, at best, a modest effect: under the very best of circumstances (an exact match to viral strains, plus ONLY looking at 40-65-year-old HEALTHY adults), 33 people need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of flu symptoms. Not one death, ONE CASE.

Under average conditions (not an exact strain match, but still only considering HEALTHY adults), 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of flu symptoms.

Since when has it EVER been ethically acceptable to recommend an invasive procedure that has caused autoimmune disorders, paralytic disorders, and death, when only 1/100 have a mild benefit?

Neonates, for instance, can't get vaccinated against flu while people over 65 are in a demographic very likely to get the vaccine annually, as well as the pneumonia vaccine, especially in a long term care facility. You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?

Are you lumping in 65+ in retirement facilities as the same those 65+ in acute care facilities?

In the nursing homes in my area, the people I know that work at them and the one I frequent most often to to visit someone I know, these places are not for those who don't want to live on their own or need a little assistance, they are for those with chronic health issues, auto-immune disorders and especially those with cancer - all of which comprise a large population of those who are not candidates for the flu or the pneumonia vaccine. Most place now have in-house hospice centers as well, so there are terminal patients as well.

And I do not even understand this sentence - You don't think that might matter when it comes to the vaccination status of workers having a protective effect?

You say the 65+ are more likely to be vaccinated - I IRL find this not at all true, yet somehow that status of the 65+ has the workershaving a protective effect? I really don't know what you might mean here.

The Cochrane Review is VERY CLEAR that flu shots have, at best, a modest effect: under the very best of circumstances (an exact match to viral strains, plus ONLY looking at 40-65-year-old HEALTHY adults), 33 people need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one case of flu symptoms. Not one death, ONE CASE.

slightly OT but I will tell of a person I know has been "trying" to do a yearly blood drive - finding people that are not on medications has been a nightmare! The 40+ group is where it starts, she told me out of every 10 people she asks, she finds maybe 3 if she is lucky that are not on meds, but out of them maybe 1 is will to donate, most FEAR needles! She has been doing this going on 4 years, a "good turn out" is 25+ people! This is an all day event, she must have 25 committed or they won't even come out from the blood bank to do the drive.

Even if the flu vaccine were 100% effective, I don't think you can force people, including HCP's, to use it.

While this discussion of flu vaccine effectiveness is interesting (although many of us have been down this garden path before) it is only relevant if one argues that a vaccine should be mandatory for whomever at a certain level of effectiveness. I do not argue this. I argue everyone has the right to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.

Even if the flu vaccine were 100% effective, I don't think you can force people, including HCP's, to use it.

While this discussion of flu vaccine effectiveness is interesting (although many of us have been down this garden path before) it is only relevant if one argues that a vaccine should be mandatory for whomever at a certain level of effectiveness. I do not argue this. I argue everyone has the right to weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.

I do too. I also think one of the cons can be losing a job if a vaccine is required.

People have the right to not vaccinate. People do not have the right to keep a job if they won't fulfill the requirements.

Good point.

But does the health care industry have the right to mandate for their workers an invasive procedure that has not been scientifically proven to be safe and effective?

What ARE all of the ramifications of such a mandate?

If people choose to leave their jobs rather than to risk their health, what happens to the quality of care offered by the industry?

If people choose--or agree to be coerced into--accepting the mandate and submitting to the invasive procedure, and then become ill, then what? They lose their jobs anyway? If the invasive procedure--vaccination--is included in governmental liability protection, what recourse do they have? Especially if they agreed to the procedure and signed the informed consent form (which may not clearly address the risks anyway)?

What if they had to agree to something with equally low but real risks, and unproven benefits, like...a tattoo? Would that be legal, for a vital industry to mandate that their workers receive a tattoo, just because the tattoo industry claimed it had a positive effect on patients?

What if they had to agree to something with equally low but real risks, and unproven benefits, like...a tattoo? Would that be legal, for a vital industry to mandate that their workers receive a tattoo, just because the tattoo industry claimed it had a positive effect on patients?

There is evidence (http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/resources/adult_immunization/flu_hcw.pdf) that flu vaccine leads to lower mortality. I understand that there is also some evidence in the other direction. Right now, for the purposes of answering *this question*, I do not wish to debate which evidence is stronger. I will say that if there was biological plausibility (stole that phrase from another debate, thanks!) and supporting evidence that caduceus tattoos led to lower mortality rates in patients, then hospitals might be justified in requiring them.

To get back to the original topic of this thread, I dislike the idea that choices do not have consequences. People are free to make lots of choices. Sometimes those choices lead to consequences. Choosing to be loudly and publicly anti-vax may lead to people questioning those choices. (It could work the other way, too, I guess.) Choosing not to get a required vaccine may result in being reassigned or fired if an employer requires that vaccine. Yes, people have the right to choose to not vaccinate. They do not have the right to have everybody approve of that choice.

Same goes for free speech. I have the right to exercise my free speech and Facebook or Twitter about behind-the-scenes stuff at my job. It's perfectly legal for me to do so. I'd probably get fired. It's also perfectly legal for my employer to fire me for exercising my legal right to free speech. My right is absolute but it is not free of consequences.

If you read the OSHA instructions, employees are still required to use sterile protocol and required to report any needle pricks and be observed and treated, whether or not they are vaccinated with the Hep B shot, so what does the shot protect against if so much protection and follow up is needed?

One cannot be discriminated against for their use of this form. It is in the OSHA law. Yet, I am sure there are those who can and will make life miserable for those who do; I have seen it done.

There is no evidence that being unvaccinated makes a person a carrier of any disease they do not have. How can you give a person a disease that you do not have or are not carrying?

If you are vaccinated, how do you know you have any protection against the disease you are vaccinated against? How many people bother to get titre counts?

However, there is plenty of evidence that live virus vaccines, MMR, Varicella, Yellow Fever, Flu, and the aP portion of the DTaP shot make the receiver of the vaccine a carrier, spreader, and sharer of the disease for as long as 2-40 days; it is called shedding viruses, except in the case of the aP. Doctors generally do not look for that cause, but it is easier to blame a non-vaxer for your disease.

Because the pertussis vaccines, the wP, documented since the 1940s to be neurologically toxic and the aP being so ineffective, there is currently a new and improved pertussis vaccine in the works - a live bacterial vaccine that will go up the nose like the Flumist. I guarantee that will be a sharing experience for all involved.

In all (almost all?) professions the directive is to protect youself first. Police, EMT, etc.

If a person deems a vaccine too risky then who is anyone to say they should do it, particularly given the above?

If a person deems a vaccine too risky she is free to decline it. She just has to look for a new job. Making a choice unattractive is not the same thing as making a choice unavailable. The choice is still there.

If a person deems a vaccine too risky she is free to decline it. She just has to look for a new job. Making a choice unattractive is not the same thing as making a choice unavailable. The choice is still there.

Sounds simple and logical--but it's not.

"Will you hire me? I was fired for failure to comply with job requirements." Yeah, that's going to go over really well.

My original questions stand unanswered:

What ARE all of the ramifications of such a mandate?

If the people choose to leave their jobs rather than to risk their health, what happens to the quality of care offered by the industry? Remember, these people were chosen for the job because they were deemed to be the most highly-qualified.

If people choose--or agree to be coerced into--accepting the mandate and submitting to the invasive procedure, and then become ill, then what? They lose their jobs anyway? If the invasive procedure--vaccination--is included in governmental liability protection, what recourse do they have? Especially if they agreed to the procedure and signed the informed consent form (which may not clearly address the risks anyway)?

Exposure to illness is an occupational hazard for the medical community. Doctors are among the highest risk population groups. Approximately 66% of pediatricians and obstetricians refused the MMR shot in one study. For shame. Obstetricians who walk around pregnant women without being up to date with their rubella vaccine! Has anyone ever asked their ob/gyn if they are up to date with their MMR boosters? An equal percentage of doctors refused the Hepatitis B shot, mostly citing safety concerns because of rumors of animal DNA contamination in the shots. The American Medical Association's (AMA) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine cite a 1994 study where approximately 1/3 of doctors were working without mandatory flu vaccines. Yet the same doctors will push every vaccine into your child without citing any of the side effects to look for.